Welcome
to No Man’s Land – to post-modern living. In the run up to
a new European constitution, the debate for and against the slow abandonment
of the nation state, towards larger units of economical and cultural flow
is ever present. It seems that more flexible modes of classification are
needed, within which a wider range of differences can be recognized and
tolerated - attaining unity through diversity. But who decides upon those
classifications? Do they really allow room for diversity, or do they merely
gloss over regional and cultural differences, creating a smooth and homogenised
view of the world?

On its 25th anniversary,
the Akademi for South Asian Dance UK and the ICA invite an open discussion
to explore the disputed territory of ‘South Asianness’. Geographically,
so-called South Asia encompasses India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan,
Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tibet. However, these countries do not
formally or informally unite in an economic or political block. So what
does this term stand for? Is it a label that has been created to fulfil
our need to classify and simplify reality? In other words, if no man’s
land is an area not assigned to any owner, is ‘South Asianness’
a label without content?

The Akademi aims to nurture
and promote South Asian dance in Britain. Following the successful ‘South
Asian Aesthetics Unwrapped!' conference at the Royal Opera House in March
2002, it has decided to broaden the examination of ‘South Asianness’
beyond aesthetics. A panel of international scholars, journalists and
artists have come together to asses its underlying influence on cultural,
artistic and political products, as well as the effects on identity construction
by the South Asian community in diaspora.

I joined the discussion in
the afternoon, which was opened by Andrée Grau, reader in dance
and programme convener (MA Ballet Studies) at Roehampton University of
Surrey. Her presentation ‘A sheltering sky? – Negotiating
identity through South Asian dance’ focused on the mechanisms that
effect South Asian dance practice in Britain today. The starting point
of her study is the acknowledgement of classification and labelling, as
part of our daily experience. We make sense of the world, by labelling
objects, people and dance. Consequently, dance is filtered through a screen
of perception, which is then further divided into genre and subgenre.
The attached labels are not neutral, but carry connotation from their
residing culture and often speak more about those who label, then about
the dance itself. If artists are not aligned with the cultural mainstream,
they are mostly classified via their socio-cultural identity, rather than
the structure of their dance practice. There are always people in power,
who constitute the cultural centre, and then there are others, who are
being confined to the margins.

Her train of thought reminded
me of Foucault’s analysis of power and knowledge. In his studies
he clearly establishes that power produces knowledge and that power and
knowledge imply one another. There can be no power relation without the
constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not
constitute at the same time power relations.

Thus, according to Grau, the
West is often regarded as embodying modernity, while Eastern culture stands
for tradition and the past. She acknowledges that labels are necessary
to make sense of the world, but asks the question: “when does a
name/label become a limitation and by extension a liability?”*
"‘South Asian dance’ is a political construction, introduced
to broaden the classification ‘Indian dance’". It was
felt that a more generic term is more appropriate, as it encompasses the
various styles, cultures and origins of these dance forms. Just like the
classification "Contemporary dance", "South Asian dance"
has become a simplified description of its content, overlooking differences
and highlighting similarities.
In the diasporic context, some argue that it creates distance and therefore
frees the artist from the notion of lost heritage; others find its ignorance
of differences limiting. Thus while some perceive it as supportive, others
feel that it is restrictive. Its status as a new nationality draws together
what has been pulled apart, but by generalising its content, it runs the
risk of deflating the artists and their uniqueness.

Today’s configurations
derive from the colonial world. Even though post-colonial theory has tried
to change “people from objects of colonial violence into subjects
of history”* it has to be acknowledged that power relations have
remained largely unchanged. As a result, South Asian dance has to battle
the notion of the exotic and is being confined to the ethnic box.

Grau illustrated her presentation
with a short film, which highlighted the current limitations dance practitioners
of various South Asian dance forms face. Often, actual performance skills
are not the decisive factor in the evaluation of their work, but they
are judged on whether or not they are South Asian and have trained in
India. Furthermore, popular opinion and institutional power verifies that
ballet is regarded a universal dance form, while South Asian dance is
still confined to its cultural links.

Grau closed her reflections
by stressing the importance of not “othering”* members of
minorities and the need for looking at issues of identity and alterity
within a “framework of inclusion/exclusion and access to resources”*.

Discussing these and other
implications, the afternoon session resumed with a panel debating "Wild
blue yonder – art, identity and representation beyond borders".
Sanjay Sharma, Parminder Vir, Keith Khan and Sanjoy Roy expressed their
opinions and shared personal experiences of the impact that "South
Asianness" has had and continues to have on their surrounding culture,
art work and personal lives.

Keith Khan, trained in Fine
Arts, has worked as a carnivalist for many years. Some of his well-known,
recent work includes the opening and closing ceremonies of the Commonwealth
Games 2002 and the Queen’s Jubilee Parade. He is a founder and artistic
director of ‘motiroti’, an art led company that works with
people and new technology. Introducing a selection of his work, he emphasised
today’s break down of identity, which allows negotiation of culture
and heritage. Aspects of our personality can be commoditised, which allows
a free self definition. Racism still exists, but eventually, cultural
identity will become obsolete. Having worked in Europe, as well as the
United States, he feels that spaces have opened and shifted, and as a
result there is more cultural fluidity. By pushing for South Asian visibility,
he tries to demystify its cultural identity with the aim of exposing ‘otherness’.
Khan believes that by highlighting South Asian relevance in today’s
society, it can move into the heart of British, or Western culture.

Sanjay Sharma, senior lecturer
at the School of Cultural and Innovation Studies of the University of
East London, agreed that ‘otherness’ needs to be integrated
by the white power. At present, white groups are able to transcend and
create universal products, while minorities are confined to create culturally
specific commodities. As a result, white products claim to speak for everyone,
including the various encompassed ethnic minorities, and added to that
white institutions also decide if and when something is being elevated
to the cutting edge; i.e. at present it is Bollywood and Asian culture.
Multicultural capitalism champions racism of inclusion and for ‘otherness’
to be integrated into white society, but real multiculturalism is edgy
and rough, not glossy and idealised. He disputed the notion of floating
identities, which are the matter of personal choice, but stated that identity
is an act of collective struggle. His presentation raised the questions
of how ‘otherness’ can resist being commoditised and labelled
exotic, when integrated and whether in today’s political climate
it still needs to comply with white spaces, in order to penetrate society?

Parminder Vir OBE, an award-winning
film and television producer and diversity adviser at Carlton Television,
looks back on a long and successful career. She has played an active part
in opening mainstream culture to ethnic minorities and remembers the collective
struggle that was needed to open up these spaces. Her memories start when
arriving in the UK in the 1960’s and the subsequent joint struggle
of blacks and asians to open white institutions. In the 60’s and
70’s, black and asian cultures were stereotyped on TV, with no means
of them taking over production. But the 80’s brought big protests
which could not be silenced and the 90’s shifted spaces and created
more opportunities for ethnic minorities in mainstream culture. While
she personally has never felt at odds with her identity and as a film
maker does not want to be limited to dealing solemnly with her own identity,
institutions have had problems with her ethnicity and identity. Today,
Asian and Black culture is starting to be integrated into our cultural
centre and Vir pleaded that in an age of integrated casting and cross-over
programs, ethnicity can and should be embraced as an asset, not a limitation.

Sanjoy Roy, dance critic for
the Guardian, Dance Now, Dancing Times and other dance publications shared
his experience of being mixed-race in British society. In contrast to
Parminder Vir, he has had problems with his identity and describes it
as changeable and depending on whom he meets. He summarized some of the
attributes that society has for people with mixed heritages: the notion
of shiftiness, a person in disguise, lost in no man’s land, but
at the same time: is bridging cultures, is rich in traditions, a new creation.
He has accepted that there is no universal way of dealing with the situation,
however he is adamant that even in his state of uncertainty, he would
never call himself South Asian.

The panel discussion resumed
with a brief question and answer section for the audience and was closed
by the chair Shobana Jeyasingh, director/choreographer of the Shobana
Jeyasingh Dance Company. She summarised the various opinions presented
throughout the day and finished on a personal wish that out of all of
Roy’s options, she would like to be referred to as ‘a new
creation’.

Instead of celebrating its
25th anniversary with a big dance performance, the Akademi has chosen
to raise and draw attention to these important issues. Integration into
a global trans-national structure can only be achieved when differences
are acknowledged and accepted as assets to a broader cultural structure.
Recognising our shared humanity, ‘otherness’ needs to be able
to move from the margins into the cultural centre and while still honouring
and celebrating its traditions and past, it needs to be given the possibility
to transcend its heritage and move in new directions.

"South Asianness"
will be a valid label, as long as we recognize it as a collective term
for various cultures and products. It does, however, only mark a starting
point for further explorations and does not constitute an exhaustive label
that limits and confines its content to a superficial commonality.